Mitt Romney... our current biggest 2012 obstacle?

[parocks]

I don't like Romney. I like Ron Paul, and to a lesser degree, Sarah Palin.

But you, a Romney supporter, do have the genius that is often lacking here when you recognize that Obama is really really unpopular with Republican Primary Voters.

The Republican Nominee will be getting the Nomination from the votes of people who strongly dislike Obama, and never liked Obama one bit. You understand that. Many here don't. There are people here that like Obama, or believe that the Republicans are just as bad as Obama and the Democrats. They'd recommend criticising Democrats and Republicans equally. You, and Romney have the kind of genius (which is actually common sense) to recognize that if you're running for the Republican Nomination, you want to present yourself as a Republican, who has Republican beliefs and a Republican track records. The things you dislike are Democrats and Obama.

I don't believe for a second that Romney is a conservative, but he certainly wants people to think he is one. Ron Paul most certainly is the most conservative (in a Tea Party / limited government sense). But people here want to talk antiwar and protest the tea party.

I'd beg to differ with you on that. BARACK OBAMA is everything that is wrong with America.

[Flash]

They'd recommend criticising Democrats and Republicans equally. You, and Romney have the kind of genius (which is actually common sense) to recognize that if you're running for the Republican Nomination, you want to present yourself as a Republican, who has Republican beliefs and a Republican track records. The things you dislike are Democrats and Obama.

You fail to understand there's a difference between talking to someone one-on-one on an internet forum and mass marketing to a national [conservative] audience. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul runs ads saying "REPUBLICANS = DEMOCRATS" at all. What I do suggest is going out there and talking to theses Romney supporters about how his policies in Massachusetts were identical with the MA Democratic Party. And point out how Romney's health care bill had a considerable influence on Obama's health care plan, as admitted by Obama himself.

I guarantee once more people are aware of Romney's policies (which WILL come up during the 2011 debates) they will drop him. It happened in 2007 when polls were showing Romney to be the front runner. Everyone tag teamed to take him down.

[Nate G.]

Open the flood gates on Romney! He must be pure evil...

Guys, I'm not going to try to persuade you to support Romney, I know it's impossible. I can't but help to try to correct what I feel are misconceptions about him. Here are a few from just that last few minutes:

Paulitics says "He is pro big government, period." Not really true sir. If he were you would expect that MA government would have expanded during his tenure. The opposite is true in fact. When Romney left office there were 600 less state government employees than when he started. Has that ever happened in the Fed gov?

Sentient Void says that Romney is a corporatist schill. I think what you are trying to say is that he is only in politics to protect his interests and his money. His actions provide evidence to the contrary. Romney has not taken a salary for any of his work since he left Bain Capital in 1998. He took no salary for doing the Olympics. He took no salary as Gov. of MA. He has donated all of his profits from his book to charity as well his speaking fees at several events. Romney is not in it for money. Nor even power. He is in it because he loves this country, and he loves his family, and hopes to leave the country in a better state for their inheritance.

You can disagree with the his policies, and I know you do, but Romney is in politics for the right reasons and motives.

[Flash]

That doesn't even make sense. If he is not in it for the power as you claimed (you said earlier you couldn't speak for him) then why would he have been Governor and held influence over the Massachusetts GOP? Common sense. If he didn't desire power then he would either just be a regular businessman or an anarchist.
And if he really values principles over power, then why does he repeatedly change his mind on the policies he had WHILE campaigning and the policies he had after being elected? The abortion issue comes to mind.

[Nate G.]

Regarding Republicans.... I have at times been very disappointed with the Republican party. Their record on spending when they had the majority is an embarrassment. Even so it is absolutely nothing compared to what the Dems are doing in congress right now.

As embarrassing as the GOP can be sometimes, I believe (and I think Dr. Paul would agree) that it is the best vehicle to use to promote conservative values. If Dr. Paul didn't think so he wouldn't have tried to win the GOP nomination in 2008. I'm sure he sees many errors in the GOP, but he seeks to improve it, rather than abandon it. I agree with this posture.

[paulitics]

Open the flood gates on Romney! He must be pure evil...

Guys, I'm not going to try to persuade you to support Romney, I know it's impossible. I can't but help to try to correct what I feel are misconceptions about him. Here are a few from just that last few minutes:

Paulitics says "He is pro big government, period." Not really true sir. If he were you would expect that MA government would have expanded during his tenure. The opposite is true in fact. When Romney left office there were 600 less state government employees than when he started. Has that ever happened in the Fed gov?

Who cares if (assuming your stat isn't hogwash) there were less state employees the year he left office. Romney permanently and dramatically increased the size of government, and helped provide a prototype for Obama to go around and say "A republican tried it, and it worked."

The argument you make is the same one Obama is making right now, that he isn't increasing taxes TODAY. But he is, and it will come a few years down the road because of these programs.

So, are you saying that a state mandated health insurance program is ok with you? Are you for cap and tax on the state level as well?

[Nate G.]

That doesn't even make sense. If he is not in it for the power as you claimed (you said earlier you couldn't speak for him) then why would he have been Governor and held influence over the Massachusetts GOP? Common sense. If he didn't desire power then he would either just be a regular businessman or an anarchist.
And if he really values principles over power, then why does he repeatedly change his mind on the policies he had WHILE campaigning and the policies he had after being elected? The abortion issue comes to mind.

There are different types of power, and I should have clarified better. There are those who seek to influence the national agenda, legislation etc, because they feel they can change it for the better. This if fine. This is what Romney does, as well as Dr. Paul.

Then there are those who seek to control the government, markets, for their own purposes. Neither Romney nor Paul are in it for those reasons.

Regarding change in policies. The substantial change in policy that Romney has had is in regards to abortion. There are many who say that he changed his stance on gay marriage. That simply is not true, he was never for it. There are many who've twisted his words on other matters. But abortion alone is the issue in which he flipped on. Note that it was a flip and not a flop, because he has never gone back to his previous held position.

[Tend yer biscuits.]

Re: Forum war

My bad. I didn't know that was taboo.

[parocks]

Well in 2011, 2012 (assuming Romney runs) Romney's opponents will bring up elements of his record that do not appeal to Republican Primary voters. There's a lot there to work with.

You fail to understand there's a difference between talking to someone one-on-one on an internet forum and mass marketing to a national [conservative] audience. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul runs ads saying "REPUBLICANS = DEMOCRATS" at all. What I do suggest is going out there and talking to theses Romney supporters about how his policies in Massachusetts were identical with the MA Democratic Party. And point out how Romney's health care bill had a considerable influence on Obama's health care plan, as admitted by Obama himself.

I guarantee once more people are aware of Romney's policies (which WILL come up during the 2011 debates) they will drop him. It happened in 2007 when polls were showing Romney to be the front runner. Everyone tag teamed to take him down.

[Nate G.]

Who cares if (assuming your stat isn't hogwash) there were less state employees the year he left office. Romney permanently and dramatically increased the size of government, and helped provide a prototype for Obama to go around and say "A republican tried it, and it worked."

The argument you make is the same one Obama is making right now, that he isn't increasing taxes TODAY. But he is, and it will come a few years down the road because of these programs.

So, are you saying that a state mandated health insurance program is ok with you? Are you for cap and tax on the state level as well?

The state has the right to issue such a program, but the Fed government does not, but I'm sure a constitutionalist as yourself would already know that. Also, the government doesn't oversee that program, the Commonwealth connector does. The MA plan is not perfect. And I readily admit that I would not want it in my state. Even Romney admits that his plan is not perfect. But neither was it implemented in the manner he sought to do it as the MA legislature over wrote many of his vetoes.

I am not for cap and tax on any level. But if a state chose to that it would have the right. I would fight it tooth and nail.

BTW- Dems are lying when they say they used MA care as a template. They never once spoke with Romney about it. The plans they tried to push were very different. And the end result is much different than MA care is as well. Don't succumb to their propaganda by equating the two. The differences are numerous.

[Sentient Void]

He advocated, supported and helped pass a bill that increased govt intervention by *forcing* individuals buy health insurance. If someone doesn't, than they are PUNISHED by *much* higher taxes. If they don't acknowledge such authority and fight paying those taxes, they will be brought to jail. If they resist being brought to jail - they will be shot.

How is this NOT being for big govt and increased govt power? This is not only a clear violation of the free market, but also a violation of civil liberties.

Romney is no conservative and no believer in limited govt.

[Nate G.]

He advocated, supported and helped pass a bill that increased govt intervention by *forcing* individuals buy health insurance. If someone doesn't, than they are PUNISHED by *much* higher taxes. If they don't acknowledge such authority and fight paying those taxes, they will be brought to jail. If they resist being brought to jail - they will be shot.

How is this NOT being for big govt and increased govt power? This is not only a clear violation of the free market, but also a violation of civil liberties.

Romney is no conservative, no believer in the constitution, and no believer in limited govt.

Well to answer... you are wrong in your premise. Romney didn't seek to mandate insurance coverage for everyone. He wanted to created incentives for people to get insurane through tax credits, not punish them through fines. He was overridden on that. After that he tried to make it possible for people to opt out if they could prove that they could afford to pay their own expense in a health problem. Over-ridden again. Another thing he tried was for people to be able to post a bond to use for their expenses if they need them and then be able to opt out of the plan. No go. Regarding jail... you are wrong there. You are thinking of Pelosi's plan. There is no jail for non-conformity.

It appears to me that you don't fully understand Romney's plan. I don't expect you'll ever approve of it, but perhaps, if you are going to rail against it you should know the details. You seem to think that Romney wrote the bill himself. Many of the things wrong with it are things he fought against. It more complicated than saying it is simply RomneyCare and he's completely responsible for it.

[sratiug]

Well to answer... you are wrong in your premise. Romney didn't seek to mandate insurance coverage for everyone. He wanted to created incentives for people to get insurane through tax credits, not punish them through fines. He was overridden on that. After that he tried to make it possible for people to opt out if they could prove that they could afford to pay their own expense in a health problem. Over-ridden again. Another thing he tried was for people to be able to post a bond to use for their expenses if they need them and then be able to opt out of the plan. No go. Regarding jail... you are wrong there. You are thinking of Pelosi's plan. There is no jail for non-conformity.

It appears to me that you don't fully understand Romney's plan. I don't expect you'll ever approve of it, but perhaps, if you are going to rail against it you should know the details. You seem to think that Romney wrote the bill himself. Many of the things wrong with it are things he fought against. It more complicated than saying it is simply RomneyCare and he's completely responsible for it.

Did he sign the healthcare bill?

As far as it being constitutional for states to force you to buy health insurance, it's not. Slavery was outlawed a long time ago.

The state has the power to tax and would have been better off to just build public hospitals where all the state citizens could go for free than to mandate the buying of private insurance. People don't need insurance, they need health care. They are two different things. But then that wouldn't benefit the insurance companies, which is why Romney is a corporatist.

[Ninja Homer]

The biggest 2012 obstacle is MSM. Get equal air time and Ron Paul wins hands down. The same would have been true for '08 as well. As MSM news credibility goes down, Ron Paul popularity goes up.

[paulitics]

The state has the right to issue such a program, but the Fed government does not, but I'm sure a constitutionalist as yourself would already know that. Also, the government doesn't oversee that program, the Commonwealth connector does. The MA plan is not perfect. And I readily admit that I would not want it in my state. Even Romney admits that his plan is not perfect. But neither was it implemented in the manner he sought to do it as the MA legislature over wrote many of his vetoes.

I am not for cap and tax on any level. But if a state chose to that it would have the right. I would fight it tooth and nail.

BTW- Dems are lying when they say they used MA care as a template. They never once spoke with Romney about it. The plans they tried to push were very different. And the end result is much different than MA care is as well. Don't succumb to their propaganda by equating the two. The differences are numerous.

His signature is on the bill, therefore he must accept credit for what he signs into law. His hands were not tied, he could have easily not have moved the ball in the socialist direction in the first place. This was his baby. He needs to take ownership of what he creates and be a man about it.

If he sincerely changed, then he needs to make some aplogies ASAP, and explain how he was wrong.

America is in dire shape. We really don't have anymore time left for the Romney politician, where we overlook their past and hope their rhetoric is sincere.

[Nate G.]

For those of you asking if Romney's name was on the bill, I'd like to remind you that of two things.

1- Massachessetts allows for a line item veto. No, he did not sign the portions of the bill that mandated people must buy insurance or be fined by the state. The part he did sign was to divert funds that were already coming into the state for Medicaid and to pay hospitals for their losses, divert those funds to help poorer families obtain their own insurance and take some responsibility for the expenses of their health-care.

2-The MA legislature is vastly Dems, almost 80%. They overrode his veto on all 7 of the items in the bill that he vetoed.

When you say that the governor is solely responsible for a bill, when his legislature overrode his vetoes, then you are being intellectually dishonest. You WANT to pin the whole thing on him, irregardless of the facts. Since Romney may run as a contender in 2012 he is the enemy and you NEED him to be wrong on everything.

I have shown you the facts here. Most of which I'm sure most of you did not know. But you have it so ingrained in you heart that Romney is to blame for everything in MA Care that you simply will no longer listen to reason. That's when our conversation comes to an end.

[wgadget]

Pardon me, I only read the thread title, and.....


BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[sratiug]

For those of you asking if Romney's name was on the bill, I'd like to remind you that of two things.

1- Massachessetts allows for a line item veto. No, he did not sign the portions of the bill that mandated people must buy insurance or be fined by the state. The part he did sign was to divert funds that were already coming into the state for Medicaid and to pay hospitals for their losses, divert those funds to help poorer families obtain their own insurance and take some responsibility for the expenses of their health-care.

2-The MA legislature is vastly Dems, almost 80%. They overrode his veto on all 7 of the items in the bill that he vetoed.

When you say that the governor is solely responsible for a bill, when his legislature overrode his vetoes, then you are being intellectually dishonest. You WANT to pin the whole thing on him, irregardless of the facts. Since Romney may run as a contender in 2012 he is the enemy and you NEED him to be wrong on everything.

I have shown you the facts here. Most of which I'm sure most of you did not know. But you have it so ingrained in you heart that Romney is to blame for everything in MA Care that you simply will no longer listen to reason. That's when our conversation comes to an end.

Then why does he say he supports the mandates? And why does he support terrorism?

[Smitty]

Romney is owned.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...mit_98789.html

Fortunately, his health insurance mandate will prevent him from being a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

He could save himself a lot of time and money by choosing not to run.

[ninepointfive]

I would like to extend a hand towards Nate G, and thank him for providing some great feedback here. I would also like to remind some of our rpf members to remain mature and debate intelligently.

[wgadget]

I would like to extend a hand towards Nate G, and thank him for providing some great feedback here. I would also like to remind some of our rpf members to remain mature and debate intelligently.

Yes, ma'am.

[sofia]

For those of you asking if Romney's name was on the bill, I'd like to remind you that of two things.

1- Massachessetts allows for a line item veto. No, he did not sign the portions of the bill that mandated people must buy insurance or be fined by the state. The part he did sign was to divert funds that were already coming into the state for Medicaid and to pay hospitals for their losses, divert those funds to help poorer families obtain their own insurance and take some responsibility for the expenses of their health-care.

2-The MA legislature is vastly Dems, almost 80%. They overrode his veto on all 7 of the items in the bill that he vetoed.

When you say that the governor is solely responsible for a bill, when his legislature overrode his vetoes, then you are being intellectually dishonest. You WANT to pin the whole thing on him, irregardless of the facts. Since Romney may run as a contender in 2012 he is the enemy and you NEED him to be wrong on everything.

I have shown you the facts here. Most of which I'm sure most of you did not know. But you have it so ingrained in you heart that Romney is to blame for everything in MA Care that you simply will no longer listen to reason. That's when our conversation comes to an end.

Mitt IS the enemy. He is a despeccable hypocrite.

....An Israeli bootlicker and warmonger with FIVE able bodied sons that refuse to fight.

...A donor to Planned Parenthood until he decided he wanted to be a national candidate and is now "pro-life"

... a sleazy Botoxed con man who would sell his own mother to fulfill his political ambitions.

...a peddler of the Global Warming Hoax

...a big government Republican who wont cut a dime from the budget

...a supporter of the Bailout

take your Romney garbage someplace else....we aint buyin it....

[Dan Chisholm]

We need to move Mitt closer to libertarianism. He isn't the enemy. Progressivism, liberalism, and the growing dependency culture is the enemy. We need to acknowledge areas where we agree and work to convince others on what we disagree. We also need to realize that some of the issues that Mitt is attacked for are made-up or taken out of context political attacks cooked up by the DNC in 2006 and 2007. Mitt's not perfect to be sure and neither are any other republican candidates, but if we focus on each other too much, we won't be able to stop Obama in 2012. If he wins one more election, our country will be too far gone to save. We're almost there right now, but we still have one last chance in 2012 to Bring America Back.

[low preference guy]

We need to move Mitt closer to libertarianism. He isn't the enemy. Progressivism, liberalism, and the growing dependency culture is the enemy. We need to acknowledge areas where we agree and work to convince others on what we disagree. We also need to realize that some of the issues that Mitt is attacked for are made-up or taken out of context political attacks cooked up by the DNC in 2006 and 2007. Mitt's not perfect to be sure and neither are any other republican candidates, but if we focus on each other too much, we won't be able to stop Obama in 2012. If he wins one more election, our country will be too far gone to save. We're almost there right now, but we still have one last chance in 2012 to Bring America Back.

All the things you say are true and we should consider Mitt Romney again. But only after after these two things happen:

1. He apologizes for supporting the bailout.
2. He apologizes for supporting an individual mandate to buy health care, and repudiates his "I like mandates" statement at a Republican Presidential debate in 2007.

[sofia]

We need to move Mitt closer to libertarianism. He isn't the enemy. Progressivism, liberalism, and the growing dependency culture is the enemy. We need to acknowledge areas where we agree and work to convince others on what we disagree. We also need to realize that some of the issues that Mitt is attacked for are made-up or taken out of context political attacks cooked up by the DNC in 2006 and 2007. Mitt's not perfect to be sure and neither are any other republican candidates, but if we focus on each other too much, we won't be able to stop Obama in 2012. If he wins one more election, our country will be too far gone to save. We're almost there right now, but we still have one last chance in 2012 to Bring America Back.

So...Romney, Bonior, and McConnell are gonna save us from socialism???

What is this....Romney troll night?

If Romney or any other GOP fool besides Ron paul is the nominee.....i aint voting

[radiofriendly]

YouTube - Mitt Romney is Gorgeous

[sofia]

All the things you say are true and we should consider Mitt Romney again. But only after after these two things happen:

1. He apologizes for supporting the bailout.
2. He apologizes for supporting an individual mandate to buy health care, and repudiates his "I like mandates" statement at a Republican Presidential debate in 2007.

LPG... they're getting to you!...say it aint so...


Romney will tell you anything to get elected....Reject ANY republican who aint Ron Paul

[low preference guy]

LPG... they're getting to you!...say it aint so...


Romney will tell you anything to get elected....Reject ANY republican who aint Ron Paul

I said I'll consider him.

I didn't say I'd support him.

[Flash]

For those of you asking if Romney's name was on the bill, I'd like to remind you that of two things.

1- Massachessetts allows for a line item veto. No, he did not sign the portions of the bill that mandated people must buy insurance or be fined by the state. The part he did sign was to divert funds that were already coming into the state for Medicaid and to pay hospitals for their losses, divert those funds to help poorer families obtain their own insurance and take some responsibility for the expenses of their health-care.

2-The MA legislature is vastly Dems, almost 80%. They overrode his veto on all 7 of the items in the bill that he vetoed.

When you say that the governor is solely responsible for a bill, when his legislature overrode his vetoes, then you are being intellectually dishonest. You WANT to pin the whole thing on him, irregardless of the facts. Since Romney may run as a contender in 2012 he is the enemy and you NEED him to be wrong on everything.

I have shown you the facts here. Most of which I'm sure most of you did not know. But you have it so ingrained in you heart that Romney is to blame for everything in MA Care that you simply will no longer listen to reason. That's when our conversation comes to an end.

Ah, so he swallowed his pride, negotiated his principles for the good of the state! But once he gets into that white house.. he'll pull off his fake moderate uniform and transform into Super-Conservative. Just like Obama became an anti-war president, only lying about supporting the iraqi war during the debates. You completely won us over with your superior logic.

Yeah he's the 'enemy.' We don't like him because hes running against a 77 year old man. Not because the guy supports a hawkish foreign interventionist policy, not because he spent his entire time into office pandering to democrats, not because he influenced Obama's health care plan, not because he endorsed loony-tunes John Mccain. But because hes going to run against a man pushing 80 that we're all obsessed with.


Seriously, nominating Romney is a sure way to ensure an extended Obama Presidency. Just like nominating Sarah Palin. I'm not saying Ron Paul is the only guy that can take Obama down, I'm saying a guy that supported a form of health care similar to Obama is going to look like a total hypocrite to most Americans. It just goes to show why sticking to your principles is a little more important than pandering to the Ted Kennedy mafia.

[Nate G.]

Ah, so he swallowed his pride, negotiated his principles for the good of the state! But once he gets into that white house.. he'll pull off his fake moderate uniform and transform into Super-Conservative. Just like Obama became an anti-war president, only lying about supporting the iraqi war during the debates. You completely won us over with your superior logic.

Yeah he's the 'enemy.' We don't like him because hes running against a 77 year old man. Not because the guy supports a hawkish foreign interventionist policy, not because he spent his entire time into office pandering to democrats, not because he influenced Obama's health care plan, not because he endorsed loony-tunes John Mccain. But because hes going to run against a man pushing 80 that we're all obsessed with.


Seriously, nominating Romney is a sure way to ensure an extended Obama Presidency. Just like nominating Sarah Palin. I'm not saying Ron Paul is the only guy that can take Obama down, I'm saying a guy that supported a form of health care similar to Obama is going to look like a total hypocrite to most Americans. It just goes to show why sticking to your principles is a little more important than pandering to the Ted Kennedy mafia.

You're argument still shows that you know very little about Romney. Pandering to Dems in MA. You must not realize that the Dems hated him as Governor. Why? Because he was relentless with his veto pen. He vetoed billions from their budget. He vetoed provisions that would expand access to abortion in the state. He fought against raising the minimum wage. He did not negotiate his principles. Having your veto over-ridden is not negotiating.

BTW- I fully support his foreign policy. I won't even attempt to argue that because it is moot. That is the one area where I differ greatly from the good Dr. Paul. You can bash me all you want for that. My feelings and opinion will stay intact.